Bible versions-Is there only one?

[John146]

God has preserved his Word in many languages and translations,

You know when you use the phrase, “His Word” that means God’s trustworthy, reliable, pure words without error?

 

[John146]

Trusting in God goes beyond what is written in His word.

Really? Can you give an example?

 

[JamOn]

Yes. Pre 1066 old English (Anglo Saxon) is unrecognisable as English by the Middle English period of the KJ era.
All the Latin and French was introduced into the language by the after the Norman Invasion.

from what I’ve read Latin was around about the 3rd century BC, romans used Latin for internal business and the their military used it a lot. The sign Pilate had made was written in Greek Latin and Aramaic

 

[Dino246]

It’s not obsolete if we read and study it daily.

Yes, it is. Familiarity with a studied language doesn't make it modern.

Are we that lazy that we need it dumbed down into a broken form of English...?

Modern English is not "broken"; languages change over time. Your comment is simply arrogant.

Matthew 9:17 - NASV / wineskins - KJV / bottles

The rest of your examples are simply cherry-picked. That goes both ways and is yet another bad argument. I honestly wonder whether you have any good arguments for the KJV; I certainly haven't seen any from you.

As for "bottles", it really is archaic and misleading, because everybody today will think "glass bottles" which are not the same thing. The correct word in modern English is "wineskins".

 

[Dino246]

Really? Can you give an example?

A living relationship with God involves talking to Him about things that are not in Scripture... like which way to turn at the next intersection. If you can only hear God when you read Scripture, your relationship with Him is stunted. Scripture itself tells you that those who wrote it did not rely exclusively on it.

 

[Dino246]

We’re you there to see this, or did your PhD professor teach you this?

PhD = post hole digger

This is beneath you, John. At least, I thought it was.

Amazing God chose to use this corrupt Bible to spur the greatest revival the world has ever seen.

No, He didn't. He Himself spurred the greatest revival the world has ever seen.

And you know, Angela, older does not mean better. Older simply means, we have them because they were not used and passed around, put on a shelf, rejected.

Yawn... yet another bad (and debunked) argument.

 

[John146]

Modern English is not "broken"; languages change over time. Your comment is simply arrogant.

My wife is bilingual and teaches Spanish. Today’s English language makes no sense compared to other languages that have more defined rules.

 

[John146]

A living relationship with God involves talking to Him about things that are not in Scripture... like which way to turn at the next intersection. If you can only hear God when you read Scripture, your relationship with Him is stunted. Scripture itself tells you that those who wrote it did not rely exclusively on it.

God’s word is incomplete. He has more things to say like, turn right here.

 

[Dino246]

My wife is bilingual and teaches Spanish. Today’s English language makes no sense compared to other languages that have more defined rules.

When did "other languages with more defined rules" become the standard for determining the state of modern English?

Try making a relevant comment.

 

[John146]

This is beneath you, John. At least, I thought it was.

What does Scripture say about high education? Having letters behind your name means nothing when it comes to God’s word.

 

[John146]

No, He didn't. He Himself spurred the greatest revival the world has ever seen.

How? Through His word.

 

[Dino246]

God’s word is incomplete. He has more things to say like, turn right here.

When Joseph was in the Egyptian prison, did God speak to him through the extant Bible, or directly?
When Daniel fasted and prayed, did God speak to him through the extant Bible, or directly?
When Paul was praying about going to Asia, did God speak to him through the extant Bible, or directly?

Mock away. I'm content with lowering my opinion of you to match your behaviour.

 

[John146]

When did "other languages with more defined rules" become the standard for determining the state of modern English?

Try making a relevant comment.

It doesn’t. It just shows how bad our language is today. Even at the time of the KJV, 1611, the language of the day was already using words like “you” to refer to plural and singular which is confusing when used this way in a text. The KJV translators decided that accuracy was more important than common language when it comes to God’s word.

 

[John146]

When Joseph was in the Egyptian prison, did God speak to him through the extant Bible, or directly?
When Daniel fasted and prayed, did God speak to him through the extant Bible, or directly?
When Paul was praying about going to Asia, did God speak to him through the extant Bible, or directly?

Mock away. I'm content with lowering my opinion of you to match your behaviour.

He spoke His word and now we have it complete. Will God bring to memory what He’s already given? Absolutely.

 

[Dino246]

It doesn’t. It just shows how bad our language is today. Even at the time of the KJV, 1611, the language of the day was already using words like “you” to refer to plural and singular which is confusing when used this way in a text. The KJV translators decided that accuracy was more important than common language when it comes to God’s word.

It's easy to determine the plurality of the pronoun through a little study.

 

[John146]

It's easy to determine the plurality of the pronoun through a little study.

Example. Who is the Lord speaking to in verse 31? Verse 32?

Luke 22 KJV
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: the disciples, plural
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Peter in particular

But in the ESV, it is unclear. It seems like the Lord is talking about Peter the entire time which is false.

Luke 22 ESV
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

 

[Dino246]

Example. Who is the Lord speaking to in verse 31? Verse 32?

Luke 22 KJV
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: the disciples, plural
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Peter in particular

But in the ESV, it is unclear. It seems like the Lord is talking about Peter the entire time which is false.

Luke 22 ESV
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

It appears that your concept of "study" involves no more than merely reading. That explains a lot.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

from what I’ve read Latin was around about the 3rd century BC, romans used Latin for internal business and the their military used it a lot. The sign Pilate had made was written in Greek Latin and Aramaic

Anglo Saxon wasn't a language of The British Isles during the Roman occupation. It developed later after Rome withdrew and the Anglo Saxon and Jute tribes began to invade from the continent.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

You read what you want. I use multiple translations including the KJV. Not much of a difference. It is funny what Christians will get fussy over. So much of it sometimes is over the top.



Not necessarily. Changed then yes but revised then no. Revisions can be from new evidence that emerges every year. 81% of this poll would disagree with you. Kinda strange that you and me have agreed on many topics in other posts but somehow my most used version is corrupted?

Ask him how many revisions the KJV has went through since 1611.

 

[Lightskin]

There are many translations and revised versions of Bible’s(NIV, Amplified, King James, Living Translation, AS). Did any of these lose essential Biblical meanings and teachings via the translation process? If so, which ones? If true, should those versions be avoided by Believers?

God’s Word is not confined to one translation. People who read Scripture prayerfully, asking God for guidance, wisdom and clarity in the Name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit will never be led astray.